2008 Woodie Awards
SPECIAL ELECTION: Propositions Makes Election Special
Part one in a two-part series outlining the ballot propositions.
Brian Dean
Issue date: 10/19/05 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
California's ballot initiative process allows voters to directly accept or reject new laws. Individuals and organizations are constantly working toward reaching the requirements for qualifying an initiative. When an initiative qualifies during an odd year, in this case eight of them, the governor has the ability to call a special election rather than wait for the following year's general election.
Many different groups with wide-ranging agendas are making this election a fierce battle of ideas. With the election three weeks away, more than $200 million in advertising has already been spent on issues such as abortion, prescription drug coverage, teacher's tenure, and more. Here's a look at a few of the propositions on the ballot for Nov. 8.
Proposition 73 is an initiative that, if approved, will amend the California Constitution to require that physicians notify the parent or legal guardian of a minor 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. While it does not require parental consent, the new law would require written notification be sent via certified mail or given to the parent directly.
"I wouldn't want to have someone take my daughter to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell me," said Gov. Schwarzenegger in an interview with the Sacramento Bee. "I would kill him if they do that."
Proposition 73 supporters say it's all about a parent's right to know. They say parents have their child's best interests in mind, not clinics that profit from the abortion business. Pointing out the contradiction that a minor cannot obtain a flu shot or get a tooth pulled without a parent knowing, supporters also seek to reassure girls who may be affected by spotlighting the fact that the new law provides alternatives for special circumstances.
In case of a medical emergency, where the young woman's life or "impairment of a major bodily function" is at stake, the notification requirement would not apply. Also, a minor can seek a waiver of parental notification through a juvenile court, who would determine if the child is "sufficiently mature and well-informed" to make such a decision, or if parental notification is not in the child's best interests.
"You can't legislate good family relationships," said Cynthia Dailard, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in a news release outlining the risks of forced notification. The Guttmacher Institute is an organization geared toward research, policy analysis and public education of sexual and reproductive health.
Opponents of Proposition 73 emphasize the potential harm in placing obstacles between scared, pregnant teens and their choice to get an abortion. They fear these barriers may lead to dangerous self-induced and back-alley abortions. Along with an increase in second-trimester abortions, a more risky procedure even when performed by an experienced physician, these acts of desperation may result when young women, afraid of confronting their parents, seek alternatives or wait too long for a proper procedure.
Proposition 73 is the culmination of decades of legal battles. In 1953, a state law was enacted which allowed minors to receive similar pregnancy services as adults without parental notification or consent. That law was changed in 1987 by the state Legislature, requiring that a minor obtain consent to have an abortion from a parent or a court. In 1997, the California Supreme Court struck down the new law, having never been implemented.
Dueling propositions 78 and 79 focus on an issue many Americans feel strongly about: discount programs for prescription drugs. Though the differences on paper are understated, politics will make the distinction much more significant at the ballot box.
Eligibility requirements are comparable; individuals who earn less than $29,000 annually, or $58,000 for a family of four, qualify for Proposition 78; whereas $38,000 for individuals and $77,000 for families of four are the limits of Proposition 79.
Both plans exclude people with drug coverage through Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. Proposition 78 goes further to exclude also those who have coverage through third-party payers, or any other program supported with state or federal funds, except Medicare. Application and renewal fee is $15 for Proposition 78 and $10 for Proposition 79.
The differences emerge with the addition of Proposition 79's pro-consumer provisions. It creates the Prescription Drug Advisory Board to review drug prices and make sure state residents have access to the drugs. It changes state law by establishing penalties for companies who engage in profiteering from drug sales. Proposition 78 has no such provisions.
Not surprisingly, Proposition 78 is favored by the drug industry. Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., and Glaxosmithkline have contributed large sums to its support.
By contrast, supporters of Proposition 79 include the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the League of Women Voters of California and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.
In late August, a Field Poll asked likely voters how they would vote on the two proposals. For Proposition 78, 49 percent said 'yes' and 31 percent said 'no;' for Proposition 79, 42 percent said 'yes' and 34 percent said 'no.' However, upon learning who supports each proposition, the change was staggering: 19 percent were more likely to vote 'yes' and 44 percent more likely to vote 'no' on Proposition 78, while 40 percent were more likely to vote 'yes' and 24 percent more likely to vote 'no' on Proposition 79. If both propositions pass, which ever has the greater number of votes will go into effect.
The last issue on the ballot this November is Proposition 80, a complex set of rule changes for electric service providers. This plan has five main provisions, including restrictions on consumers and new conditions for how electricity suppliers conduct business.
Proposition 80 subjects electric service providers to control and regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission, effectively undoing much of the deregulation performed during the 1990s. According to legislative analysis, the proposal also requires all retail electricity sellers to "increase renewable energy procurement by 1 percent each year," and moves the target date from 2017 to 2010 by which 20 percent of all retail sales of energy should be acquired from renewable sources.
Proposition 80 is supported by the Utility Reform Network, the Consumer Federation of California and the Alliance for a Better California; it is opposed by the energy industry, including Constellation Energy Group Inc., APS Energy Services Inc., and Strategic Energy LLC.
For more information about the initiatives, visit the California Secretary of State's website at www.ss.ca.gov. Other valuable details and analysis can be found at www.realclearpolitics.com, www.smartvoter.org, and cal-access.ss.ca.gov, which details California campaign finance.
Many different groups with wide-ranging agendas are making this election a fierce battle of ideas. With the election three weeks away, more than $200 million in advertising has already been spent on issues such as abortion, prescription drug coverage, teacher's tenure, and more. Here's a look at a few of the propositions on the ballot for Nov. 8.
Proposition 73 is an initiative that, if approved, will amend the California Constitution to require that physicians notify the parent or legal guardian of a minor 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. While it does not require parental consent, the new law would require written notification be sent via certified mail or given to the parent directly.
 |
"I wouldn't want to have someone take my daughter to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell me," said Gov. Schwarzenegger in an interview with the Sacramento Bee. "I would kill him if they do that."
Proposition 73 supporters say it's all about a parent's right to know. They say parents have their child's best interests in mind, not clinics that profit from the abortion business. Pointing out the contradiction that a minor cannot obtain a flu shot or get a tooth pulled without a parent knowing, supporters also seek to reassure girls who may be affected by spotlighting the fact that the new law provides alternatives for special circumstances.
In case of a medical emergency, where the young woman's life or "impairment of a major bodily function" is at stake, the notification requirement would not apply. Also, a minor can seek a waiver of parental notification through a juvenile court, who would determine if the child is "sufficiently mature and well-informed" to make such a decision, or if parental notification is not in the child's best interests.
"You can't legislate good family relationships," said Cynthia Dailard, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in a news release outlining the risks of forced notification. The Guttmacher Institute is an organization geared toward research, policy analysis and public education of sexual and reproductive health.
Opponents of Proposition 73 emphasize the potential harm in placing obstacles between scared, pregnant teens and their choice to get an abortion. They fear these barriers may lead to dangerous self-induced and back-alley abortions. Along with an increase in second-trimester abortions, a more risky procedure even when performed by an experienced physician, these acts of desperation may result when young women, afraid of confronting their parents, seek alternatives or wait too long for a proper procedure.
Proposition 73 is the culmination of decades of legal battles. In 1953, a state law was enacted which allowed minors to receive similar pregnancy services as adults without parental notification or consent. That law was changed in 1987 by the state Legislature, requiring that a minor obtain consent to have an abortion from a parent or a court. In 1997, the California Supreme Court struck down the new law, having never been implemented.
Dueling propositions 78 and 79 focus on an issue many Americans feel strongly about: discount programs for prescription drugs. Though the differences on paper are understated, politics will make the distinction much more significant at the ballot box.
 |
 |
Eligibility requirements are comparable; individuals who earn less than $29,000 annually, or $58,000 for a family of four, qualify for Proposition 78; whereas $38,000 for individuals and $77,000 for families of four are the limits of Proposition 79.
Both plans exclude people with drug coverage through Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. Proposition 78 goes further to exclude also those who have coverage through third-party payers, or any other program supported with state or federal funds, except Medicare. Application and renewal fee is $15 for Proposition 78 and $10 for Proposition 79.
The differences emerge with the addition of Proposition 79's pro-consumer provisions. It creates the Prescription Drug Advisory Board to review drug prices and make sure state residents have access to the drugs. It changes state law by establishing penalties for companies who engage in profiteering from drug sales. Proposition 78 has no such provisions.
Not surprisingly, Proposition 78 is favored by the drug industry. Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., and Glaxosmithkline have contributed large sums to its support.
By contrast, supporters of Proposition 79 include the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the League of Women Voters of California and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.
In late August, a Field Poll asked likely voters how they would vote on the two proposals. For Proposition 78, 49 percent said 'yes' and 31 percent said 'no;' for Proposition 79, 42 percent said 'yes' and 34 percent said 'no.' However, upon learning who supports each proposition, the change was staggering: 19 percent were more likely to vote 'yes' and 44 percent more likely to vote 'no' on Proposition 78, while 40 percent were more likely to vote 'yes' and 24 percent more likely to vote 'no' on Proposition 79. If both propositions pass, which ever has the greater number of votes will go into effect.
The last issue on the ballot this November is Proposition 80, a complex set of rule changes for electric service providers. This plan has five main provisions, including restrictions on consumers and new conditions for how electricity suppliers conduct business.
 |
Proposition 80 subjects electric service providers to control and regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission, effectively undoing much of the deregulation performed during the 1990s. According to legislative analysis, the proposal also requires all retail electricity sellers to "increase renewable energy procurement by 1 percent each year," and moves the target date from 2017 to 2010 by which 20 percent of all retail sales of energy should be acquired from renewable sources.
Proposition 80 is supported by the Utility Reform Network, the Consumer Federation of California and the Alliance for a Better California; it is opposed by the energy industry, including Constellation Energy Group Inc., APS Energy Services Inc., and Strategic Energy LLC.
For more information about the initiatives, visit the California Secretary of State's website at www.ss.ca.gov. Other valuable details and analysis can be found at www.realclearpolitics.com, www.smartvoter.org, and cal-access.ss.ca.gov, which details California campaign finance.
